E-mails detailing Trump's reasoning and involvement in holding up arid e are deliberately being withheld from the public and congress

Really, even if his reasons for freezing the aid were perfectly a-ok, this would STILL be obstruction.

The Republican senators as a lot should all be sued for breaking their oath and jailed.

A person can never be tried twice for the same facts, but since this technically isn't a trial, would it be possible for Trump or any of his helpers ever to face treason charges after he's out of office? I mean, he'll die in office for sure now, but theoretically?
 
Is he saying he wants to give cows the right to vote?
Did someone suggest that he “ease bovine suffering” and he just misheard “sufferage?”
I now have (more) questions.

—Patrick
 

figmentPez

Staff member
A person can never be tried twice for the same facts, but since this technically isn't a trial, would it be possible for Trump or any of his helpers ever to face treason charges after he's out of office? I mean, he'll die in office for sure now, but theoretically?
There's no comparison to a real court. There were too many conflicts of interest. Trump's lawyers could not have represented him, since they were co-conspirators. This would have been beyond a mistrial, but it was never a criminal trial to begin with. Jeopardy shouldn't attach because there was never any possibility of a judgement resulting in a punishment other than removal from office.

However, theoretically? The "law" is whatever the people let our new monarch get away with. If the military continue to back His Royal Lowliness King Babyhands the First, and the Supreme Court doesn't rule otherwise, and the Senate won't remove him from office... As long as everyone keeps pretending that this is business as usual and that the rule of law still applies.... Then this is how things will continue to be, and Dol45 is emperor for life.
 
Isn't that only true if no new evidence exists, so you can't just try someone with the same evidence over and over to ruin their lives?
No, if you try someone for murder and they get found not guilty, it doesn't matter if you later find video footage of them doing it, they can't be tried for it.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Isn't that only true if no new evidence exists, so you can't just try someone with the same evidence over and over to ruin their lives? And since they're not allowing any witnesses...
No, generally speaking, once there's been a trial, it's over for those specific charges. The specifics of how jeopardy attaches are complicated, and since IANAL I can't even attempt to explain the exceptions, like mistrials and other events, but jeopardy almost certainly didn't attach in this case because it was not a criminal trial.
 
Yes, they can impeach him again. They can impeach him until he is no longer holding office.

Will they? Probably not until they get a supermajority in congress.

Will that ever happen? Hell no.
 
Isn't that only true if no new evidence exists, so you can't just try someone with the same evidence over and over to ruin their lives? And since they're not allowing any witnesses...
I just want to point out, double jeopardy, which is the idea of trying someone again for the same crime they were found not guilty for, is only forbidden in criminal court. It is not true in civil court, and is certainly not true in impeachment, which is a political tool and not a court of law at all.
 
Ngl, I thought about making that reference and thought it'd be too obscure even for this forum. I was clearly wrong.
Personally, I was going to go with Cyriak.
In fact, a YTMND/Coub with a snippet of Cyriak's video overlayed with Trump's audio could conceivably earn Internet fame.
I don't think there is any reference so obscure that some Halforumite won't get it.
"Now fix the f***in' hyperdrive!"

--Patrick
 
No, if you try someone for murder and they get found not guilty, it doesn't matter if you later find video footage of them doing it, they can't be tried for it.
No, generally speaking, once there's been a trial, it's over for those specific charges. The specifics of how jeopardy attaches are complicated, and since IANAL I can't even attempt to explain the exceptions, like mistrials and other events,
Well, you might be right that there's a need to declare the old trial invalid, but new evidence is definitely a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burks_v._United_States

It also seems to require proof that the new evidence was not available at the time, and if they just withheld it for some reason it wouldn't work.
 
[Montana] legislator insists Constitution says it’s OK to shoot socialists
On Saturday, a reporter asked Garcia to clarify his remarks.
“So actually in the Constitution of the United States (if) they are found guilty of being a socialist member you either go to prison or are shot,” Garcia said.
Garcia could not to point to where in the Constitution it says socialists could be shot or jailed.
Asked to clarify if he thought it was fair to shoot or jail a socialist, including those who live in Montana, Garcia said yes.
“They’re enemies of the free state,” Garcia said. “What do we do with our enemies in war? In Vietnam, (Afghanistan), all those. What did we do?”
—Patrick
 
Censoring the political messages in historical images. Yet another step further into fascism.
In b4 @Frank

Opinion: Why You May Never Learn the Truth About ICE
Last month the National Archives found itself in the middle of a firestorm after it put a doctored photograph of the Women’s March on Washington on display. [...] last month [The National Archives] announced that ICE could go ahead and start destroying records from Mr. Trump’s first year, including detainees’ complaints about civil rights violations and shoddy medical care. It’s not just ICE. The Department of the Interior and the National Archives have decided to delete files on endangered species, offshore drilling inspections and the safety of drinking water.
[...]
All this is happening without so much as a congressional hearing
--Patrick
 
Top